The immigration issue

There has been so much talk about immigration across the UK and in most political circles recently. I’d like to offer my take on the situation, especially since BNP members are frequently accused of not stating a clear case concerning objections to immigration.

What it is

Immigration can be defined as “Migration into a place (especially migration to a country of which you are not a native in order to settle there)” according to one popular dictionary. The important emphasis here should be on the intention to stay in the new country for a lengthy period of time.

It’s important to note that most people have a naturally prejudiced schema when they think of immigration. Until ten years ago, most indigenous British people would probably think of an Asian person when they hear the word “immigration” , while Americans would most likely think of Mexicans or other Hispanics. I believe few people can claim to be utterly unprejudiced on the immigration issue, it flies against human nature.

How many?

The number of immigrants into the UK is a matter of much debate. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, there is more than one type of immigrant. We have “legal” immigrants who are either from EU member states or hold pre-approved working visas, we also have “illegal” immigrants who enter the UK without prior Home Office (HO) approval, and finally asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are a legal grey area, as they are technically illegal immigrants but are granted temporary stay and paperwork whilst their case is being considered.

(I worked at a tax office several years ago and the number of *pending* refugee applications was striking. Each pending applicant is granted a six year passport and NI card, free of charge to the applicant).

Secondly, the official body for immigration statistics is the Office for National Statistics. The ONS is technically independent but in reality is directly reportable to the government. Therefore, to believe the statistics of the ONS is to believe that the existing government is honest enough to avoid any self serving interference with ONS statistics at a time when the opposition is pressing the case of immigration.

Migration Watch is often branded as “biased” and “racist” from those who disagree with their views or statistics. What is always lacking in these criticisms however, is credible reasons why or reliable statistical evidence that MW is wrong. The sources used by MW include credible publications and data. MW also quote from a Home Office email released under the Freedom of Information Act act that states:

“I have made this point many times before but can we please stop saying that MW migration forecasts are wrong. I have pointed out before that MW assumptions are often below the government actuary’s department’s high migration scenario.”

The affects

The true controversy of immigration lies in the conflicting arguments of its pros and cons. As this is my take on the immigration issue, I will state my viewpoints.

I will consider the arguments and counter arguments used by Journalist (and now guest lecturer) Philippe Lerain in his book: “Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them”.
(In fairness I have not finished this book yet so I may have to refine my argument later).

The benefit as seen by some:“Immigrants bring down costs and benefit the economy”

Cui bono? Unskilled immigrants accept lower wages, for sure. This is, in essence, a form of exploitation equivalent to outsourcing jobs for UK businesses and the same type of cheap labour exploitation that the left scream about when it happens in China or the Philippines.

Where do the rest of us feel the benefits of these “lower costs”? Have our taxes decreased? Has public spending increased over the rate of inflation? The reality is that the lower wages are to the benefit of the rich elite and the government.

This is not even going into the costs that each citizen brings in public services, pensions, crime etc.

A recent report by the House of Lords exposed the true lack in benefits of immigration.

The benefit as seen by some:

“Immigrants do the jobs our lazy white people don’t want to do.”

So then, how did we manage for so long before the influx? There will always be lazy people and scroungers, but there will also always be more than enough native people to do the lower skilled jobs. All that is needed is the right incentives – be they negative or positive – to motivate the work force.

The benefit as seen by some:

“Now that the baby boomers are getting old, we need immigrants to aid our aging workforce.”

Two problems with this argument. First, the bare logic of the fact is that everyone gets old, including immigrants. Unless we welcome all immigrants with the specific understanding that they return home in a set space of time, we cannot ever logically bring them in to replace our aging workers. We would simply be adding Semtex to the time bomb.

Secondly, as pointed out by migration watch , the UK without a single further migrant would continue to keep its levels of working youth at the present trend until 2027, and that’s with a conservative extrapolation of population growth rates.

Anti – all immigration?

It’s a common misconception (perhaps a voluntary misconception) from some critics that the BNP oppose all immigration, that everyone would be sent home immediately, the economy would instantly collapse and we would enter some kind of sinister, Khymer Rouge style utopian nightmare. It’s all nonsense.

My own views on managed immigration are very close to the official BNP policy. We maintain a managed system of skilled immigration. If we are short on doctors, we invite trained doctors from overseas to plug the gap temporarily. If there was to be a genuine dip in the numbers of able young workers, we would invite as many as we need to work here for that duration

The moral issue

Another charge levelled at opponents of immigration is that they are cold hearted, and ignorant of our moral obligations to help fellow human beings who in may cases have a genuine case for asylum. Again, this is totally unfounded.

A human being is a human being. Nobody in their right mind wants to turn away a suffering mother and child who have fled from a war torn country in genuine fear for their children’s lives.

However there is a problem: while we strive to meet our humanistic concerns, other nations do not. Many asylum seekers have travelled across a whole host of other safe countries to reach the borders of our tiny island? Why?

Many others – as sown in the BBC Panorama series – also highlighted a significant group of bogus asylum seekers who seek to exploit our generosity.

If we truly care about our fellow humans we should do two things. One, we should put a great deal of pressure on our friend nations to fulfil their own obligation to house asylum seekers. Two, we should be very sure we send out the message that we will accept only genuine cases, and that bogus asylum seekers will not only be turned away but formally charged and extradited.

One more moral argument exists – if we truly want to help other nations, why are we poaching their nurses, doctors, etc? Would they not be able to benefit their own people?

My own personal view is that we should take in asylum seekers who have reason to feel in fear of their lives, have not crossed other safe countries and can present a genuine case, or have some kind of exceptional circumstances that brings them to the UK first. We should also pressure our allies to be equally receptive.

What is the problem?

So what is it about immigration that is actually a problem? When does it go from being a benefit to a problem?

I have a short response to answer both these questions in one: when it irreversibly changes the landscape, identity and prospects of the nation.

Landscape – because of the population crisis. At this ear’s budget, Gordon Brown announced a project to build three million new homes. That’s almost half of London to be duplicated in a series of what will surely become the tower blocks of the new century. It’s a statistical fact that if we dealt with immigration, wouldn’t have to do this.

We live on a small island, an island that is lucky enough to have some breathtakingly beautiful landscapes. The more houses we build, the quicker we destroy that.

That of course, is yet another oxymoron from the left. They support the preservation of greenery, but they also accuse of us of living in the past when we object to globalisation and globalism.

Identity – The popular argument being that immigrants make up a tiny portion of the population, so we are being paranoid, there is no threat.

This charge is usually from the same group that would brand us myopic.

The hard facts are this – a significant proportion of first, second and even third generation immigrants are from the Islamic community. The Islamic community tends to produce more children from a younger age. Islamic birthrates are already substantially higher than local birthrates. Again, an elementary Math equation can tell us that – as with many parts of Europe – Islamic families could outnumber indigenous families within fifty years……

Which brings me to the issue of prospects.“Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis ” by Bat Ye-or provides a great summary of this risk. And it is a “risk” because however quixotically we like to look at the world, the reality is that Islam is incompatible with occidental culture. It’s not about race, it’s not about one group of humans being better than another, it is simply the reality that these two deeply rooted and heartfelt culture are too different to coexist in an area as small as the UK. What we have seen in the last few years is just an inkling of what could happen in the near future, especially if we experience a serious economic downturn, where foreign communities risk being demonised. I can go into more detail if requested.

Who is to blame?

Simple: the politicos who used this cheap option without ever consulting the people or even revealing the true nature of intent. Also the elite businessmen who exploit immigration to line their own pockets. By no means to blame are any honest immigrants who came to make an honest living for themselves or their children.

10 Responses to “The immigration issue”

Do you think immigrants from cultures that tend to have more children will, eventually have fewer? I’m sure 100 years ago, people were complaining about the hoards of children Catholics had. I attended a Catholic school in the 1980s and early 1990s, and I can’t recall too many families with more than three kids (out of 40 or so families in my grade, only ONE had four kids). In fact, two was probably the norm. I think it’s just that some cultures take longer to adapt to what is considered “normal” in the UK (or anywhere else in the western world). I think a good solution is to follow the Netherlands and show videos of what UK society considers “normal” and then have them decide whether they feel going to the UK is right for them.

In a huge country like our here in the US and the strong strong tradition of assimilate and become an American, immigration worked. Not any more. Hispanics brought Spanish TV and radio stations, newspapers and damn multiculturalism bullshit. The Muslims, now only about 1%, assimialte even less. Good luck, cousins across the pond.

While I don’t like people holding on to their culture and their culture only, I’m also not a fan of people who don’t learn about other cultures. A well-rounded, sophisticated person should speak more than one language, know about music and other arts other than their own, etc. It’s no wonder people think Europeans are “cooler” than people on this side of the Atlantic! Most Europeans, especially anyone who has more than high school, speak more than one language.

Thankyou for a clearly thought out piece.If only our elites would read the koran and see what a huge threat islam is to western civilization but instead they proceed ,in their own ignorance, on the basis of “islam is the religion of peace”,”islamophobia”,”ordinary moms and dads”,”they
will assimilate etc.” to the huge detriment of the native population.

If so, aren’t you part of the same problem you’re decrying, only in reverse? Do the Thai really need more farang living and working in their country and taking jobs away from them that they, themselves, could do? What about THEIR landscapes, identity and prospects?

Yes I am and your question is a fair one.
Thai employment law specifically states that foreigners are ONLY allowed to do a job a Thai cannot do, and the employer must submit a multitude of documents to prove this. If they gave me 50,000 GBP to go home, I’d consider it.

Tremlett, I have just seen your comments on the SPL blog. If you wish to discuss something with me, do so here (except that you are not welcome now) instead of leaving cheap shot insults on another blog for a topic you clearly know nothing about. I will speak with anyone but I won’t talk with people who take cowardly cheap shots like that. And you are a liar, you have not disproved anyone.

Has any one got two loaves and a fish our children are going to need them /with a miracle as well god bless the BNP they are all and the only hope we have /this land water and food will never provide for these numbers thats why lots of us only had one or two children to protect our land for our children s children /We have been betrayed by greedy governments with politicians who cannot manage on£80.000 a yr . If they cannot manage on that sum then they should resign as they are useless at management BNP 4 me